HYPOCRISY: AN EXPLORATION O F A "THIRD TYPE"

DAVID A. SPIELER
Adrian College, Adrian, Michigan
As a persistent phenomenon in both morality and religion,
hypocrisy has often been discussed, the result being that two
major types of it are usually distinguished. First, there is the
kind most familiar to modern English and classical Greek:
hypocrisy as feigning goodness while in reality being evil. I t is
being two-faced. I t is saying one thing and meaning another.
Although this type of hypocrisy is rarely mentioned in the Bible,
there is a fine example of it in Lk 20:19-26 (cf. Mt 22:15-22 and
Mk 12:13-17) where certain individuals who "pretended to be
sincere" sought to ensnare Jesus. Second, there is the kind found
frequently in the Old and New Testaments: hypocrisy as un-
warranted self-righteousness that is blind to one's own sins and
harsh toward the sins of others. I t is seeing the tiny speck in
another person's character more clearly than the huge blot in one's
own (cf. Mt 7:3-5 and Lk 6:41-42). I t should be noted that in
the first case the hypocrite is generally more aware of the hypocrisy
than anyone else, whereas in the second case almost everyone is
more aware of the hypocrisy than the hypocrite.
All this, of course, is to cover familiar ground. My intention is
to move from this starting point into an exploration of relatively
new territory. Specifically, what I wish to do here is to distinguish
a third major type of hypocrisy-one which is much more subtle
and therefore much more difficult to discern than the others.
I shall begin by characterizing this third type of hypocrisy more
fully. Having done that, I will suggest where it fits in with the
biblical perspective. I shall then proceed t o make some observa-
tions about its relationship to two important ethical theories, and
finally will conclude with remarks on the special danger this
particular hypocrisy holds for Christians.
274 DAVID A. SPIELER

1. Characteristics of the "T hird-Type" Hypocrisy

The third type of hypocrisy has significant similarities and
dissimilarities with the other two types. I t is similar to the first in
that the individual is more evil than appearances would indicate
and similar to the second in that the individual is more self-
righteous than the truth would warrant. However, it is dissimilar
to the first in that the hypocrite is not, at least consciously,
attempting to deceive anyone and dissimilar to the second in that
the hypocrite is not, at least openly, condemnatory of others.
Because of this peculiar combination of features, the third-type
hypocrisy is seldom recognized by either hypocrite or observer.
While important variations no doubt exist among those who
fall into this third category of hypocrisy, it would be useful to
examine a more detailed picture of one such person. For con-
venience, we will designate that individual as "M." M is probably
regarded as a pillar of church and community, perhaps even as a
saint (or as close to that as most humans are apt to get). After
all, M is never loud, harsh, aggressive, demanding, critical, or
argumentative-even in the face of considerable provocation.
M is also likely to be an advocate of what many view as the
h i g h s t and purest ethical positions: anti-war, anti-violence, anti-
discrimination, and anti-sensual indulgence of any kind (such as
sex, food, alcohol, etc.). As a consequence, M leads what
most Christians today see as a simple, ascetic life. All in all, M
is a near embodiment of the famous monkey trio-seeing no evil,
hearing no evil, and speaking no evil.
Given this sort of public posture and given the harmony of
public and private life, how could a person like M ever be classed
as a hypocrite? Only, I believe, by a careful and lengthy study
of behavior patterns. What one discovers is that no matter what
is said or done, no matter what decisions are made or actions
taken, and no matter what reasons or justifications for them are
offered, all things consistently work together to the advantage of
an individual such as M and to the detriment of other persons.
 HYPOCRISY: A "THIRD TYPE" 275

Those who are third-type hypocrites are classed as such because

they possess this crucial characteristic of pure egoism inside
covered by a veneer of altruism and benevolence outside. In
other words, these people never act primarily for the sake of
others; and even where they give the impression of doing so, the
purpose of the act is selfish (i.e., self-centered).
As was suggested earlier, this type of hypocrisy is so deeply
rooted that it does not function on a conscious level and tends
to remain well disguised from both public and private view. Yet,
I suspect that almost every reader can now recall examples of the
third-type hypocrisy. Once hypocrisy is suspected, evidence can
often be accumulated to confirm it. But since third-category
hypocrisy operates in such an apparently innocuous manner,
initial suspicions are rather rare.

2. "Third-Type" Hypocrisy in Relationship to the

Biblical Perspective
We now move on to consider how third-type hypocrisy relates
to the biblical perspective. There is no question but that the Bible
in general and the NT in particular would regard the life-style
we have been describing as indeed being a form of hypocrisy
and would condemn it. Great prophetic voices from Amos onward
have stressed the inner life and emphasized the need for har-
monizing inner life and outer behavior; words and deeds are
to flow directly from thoughts and dispositions, but in the event of
some disparity between them, ethical judgments are to be in
terms of the latter factors rather than the former ones. Jesus, too,
harking back to the prophets, placed his main concern on a
person's intentions and motivations. He spoke of an inner
transformation which cannot be compelled and which, at the
same time, cannot be measured solely in terms of an individual's
outward behavior (see, for example, Mk 7:l-23 and compare
with Jer 31:31-34).
Indeed, there is some evidence that Jesus himself both noted
276 DAVID A. SPIELER

and condemned the very type of hypocrisy we are discussing

here. Certainly the sort of hypocrisy Jesus rebuked in Mt 6:2, 5,
16 (regarding alms, prayer, and fasting) and in Mt 23:23-36 (re-
garding neglect of the weightier matters and having a clean out-
ward appearance overlying inward corruption) bears a stronger
resemblance to the third type than to the second, for the harshness
of the hypocrite toward others is absent. And one can easily
read Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:ll-32) in terms
of the elder brother's being a third-type hypocrite-at least until
an unusual and unexpected situation developed that brought his
real, deep, and hidden feelings to the surface. In fact, this type of
hypocrisy may most often be exposed to hypocrite and observer
alike when some immense crisis or frustration breaks down th,e
defenses and permits long-buried, yet still-festering, ugliness to
spring forth into the light of day.

3. "Third-Type" Hypocrisy and Ethical Theories

The points made so far may cause one to wonder how this
state of affairs is possible. How can an individual be so blind
about his or her true motivations? How can an egoist be so
completely unaware of his or her own selfishness? How can a
person regularly do (or fail to do) things which harm others
without even noticing it? Part of the answer, of course, lies in
the insight of psychology that the real causes of our thoughts
and deeds are frequently hidden from consciousness, from the
""rational self." The remainder of the answer, however, lies
embedded in the very nature of ethical theories.
We can find this third major type of hypocrisy among adher-
ents of situational ethics, wherein a person tries to decide in the
uniqueness of each situation what the law of love demands.'
It is possible for decisions always to be made in such a way as to
favor oneself, since the basic principle of situational ethics is so
general and because its application is so subjective. Indeed, in
For a presentation of this viewpoint, see Joseph F. Fletcher, Situation
Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia, 1966).
 HYPOCRISY: A "THIRD TYPE"
277

treating the "new morality" Gabriel Fackre discusses this very

problem with which we are dealing, although he does not call it
"hypocrisy."2
But we can also discover this third major type of hypocrisy
among advocates of rule ethics. As we know, when rules are
chosen, they always involve a selection from among the total
possible rules. And we know that this selection usually includes
more negatives ("Thou shalt nots") than positives ("Thou
shalts"). The assumption of rule ethics is that if one abides by
these selected, and largely negative, rules, then he or she is
righteous. The trap here is that the third-type hyprocrite (either
by selection of a system of convenient rules or by disposition or
inattention to the full implications of the rules) knows that he or
she is righteous for the simple reason that he or she abides by
those rules. And if one is convinced of one's own righteousness,
then it will likely seem unnecessary to have continual self-
examination of motives, actions, thoughts, et cetera. In fact, it is
an almost impossible task to shatter the complacency of such
people, since their perception of reality is both filtered and
skewed; besides, the fact that these people are neither two-faced
like the type-one hypocrites nor harsh like the type-two hypocrites
makes them improbable candidates for sufficiently direct con-
frontation.

4. The Danger of the "Third-Type" Hypocrisy

There is a final, yet significant, point which needs to be made
about this third-type hypocrisy. I indicated at the beginning that
this sort of hypocrisy poses special problems for the Christian.
Why? To find the answer, we might start by asking why such
people seem to see and hear so little evil. Is it because there is so
little evil around to see and hear? Certainly not! It is part of their
highly selective perspective on reality ( a defense mechanism, if
you please) which says, in effect, that if there is no evil outside of
Gabriel Fackre, "The New Morality," in Storm over Ethics (Philadelphia,
1967), pp. 70-75.
278 DAVID A. SPIELER

me (i.e., intentional evil and not merely evil resulting from mis-
takes), then there is no evil inside of me either. Indeed, I would
contend that in many cases a person's ability to look around and
see no evil in others, even when it is there, is a strong indication
that he or she will see no evil within, even when it is there.
But why is this a danger for Christians? May it not be because
Christians, especially in recent decades, have been so fearful of
imperfections in themselves (presumably on the ground that
such imperfections would disqualify them for membership and/or
leadership in the Christian community on earth and in heaven)
that they feel compelled to deny any imperfections in themselves?
In any event, the result is that the sin and evil which does exist
(cf. Rom 1: 18-20 and 5:12 on the prevalence of sin) must, for
many Christians at least, be "explained away9'-must be rational-
ized, repressed, or sublimated. Unfortunately, this tactic makes
sin less visible and, simultaneously, more difficult to eliminate.
A good example of this tendency can be found in Langdon
Gilkey's Shantung Compound, a narrative account of his experi-
ences in a prisoner-of-war camp during the Second World War.3
He depicts Christians, along with others influenced by Christian
ethics, as sublimating their true impulses and repfacing them with
a more socially acceptable f a ~ a d e .Yet the true impulses con-
tinued to control their behavior. Mary Daly, though from a dif-
ferent slant, also makes the same point.' She maintains that much
so-called Christian morality stifles honesty, conceals true motives
and values, and lowers critical consciousness.
I believe there is a close relationship between this phe-
nomenon and an individual's theological position or outlook.
Certainly, this is true with regard to examples we noted earlier
from the NT. In our own time, too, there would appear to be a
close correlation between one's theology and one's chances of
8Langdon Gilkey, Shantung Compound: T h e Story of Men and Women
under Pressure (New York, 1966).
Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's
Liberation (Boston, 1973), p. 102.
 HYPOCRISY: A "THIRD TYPE"
279

becoming a type-three hypocrite. Christians who have a very

optimistic conception of human nature would, I suspect, be the
most prone to this kind of hypocrisy; and since contemporary
western culture is heavily influenced by this and other liberal
presuppositions, that connection is surely important. Neo-Ortho-
doxy, because of its pessimistic conception of human nature,
would probably be the least prone to this sort of hypocrisy; and
"Conservative" Christianity would seem to belong somewhere
near the middle of the spectrum.
Hypocrisy of all kinds should be studied carefully. After all,
only when we are able to identify it correctly can we develop
appropriate means of containing and then eliminating it. The
"new" type of hypocrisy we have been exploring here is
especially significant because of its relative invisibility and be-
cause it is a tempting trap for the modern Christian.